9th Circuit dismisses Firearms Freedom Act: Fed. can regulate guns that stay within state of origin

On Friday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit challenging the regulatory powers of the federal government with respect to firearms that stay within the state in which they were manufactured.

The case centers around the Firearms Freedom Act, which invokes states rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and declares that “any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitution to regulate commerce among states.”

Gary Marbut is the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

This means that any firearm manufactured or produced within a state is exempt from federal laws and regulations, including licensing fees, transaction records, and the scrupulous eye of federal inspectors so long as that firearm stays within its state of origin.

The FFA was conceived by Second Amendment advocate Gary Marbut and first passed in his home state of Montana. It has since been adopted and enacted in at least nine other states and introduced in approximately 20.

The Ninth Circuit essentially ruled that the FFA was trumped by federal law that requires gun manufacturers, gun shop owners and dealers to keep records, pay fees and make themselves available to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for inspection.

Though, for Marbut the ruling was not a setback. In fact, it was expected and part of his long-term strategy of taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court.

“This was about as good of a ruling as we could have expected from the Ninth Circuit. We must get to the U.S. Supreme Court to accomplish our goal of overturning 70 years of flawed Supreme Court rulings on the Interstate Commerce Clause,” Marbut, who is president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, told WND.

“We knew that the Ninth Circuit couldn’t help us with that. Only the Supreme Court can overturn Supreme Court precedent. However, now that the standing question is resolved in our favor, we have the green light to appeal to the Supreme Court,” he added.

By “standing question” Marbut is referring to the fact that a lower court ruled that he failed to demonstrate how the federal regulations interfered with his plans to sell his homemade .22-caliber rifle, the “Montana Buckaroo,” because he had not sold any rifles yet.

But the Ninth Circuit recognized his beef because he has hundreds of customers who’ve ordered the Buckaroo and has taken steps to meet with suppliers of the materials he needs to assemble the firearms.

What was also interesting is that the appeals court acknowledged Marbut’s point about the need for the Supreme Court to ultimately review the challenge.

“Whether or not Marbut is correct in his critique of that jurisprudence, we are not free to disregard it. To his credit, Marbut acknowledges as much, recognizing that this court’s ‘hands are tied’ with respect to binding precedent.”

Marbut said that his attorneys have already begun the appeals process and that now is as good as time as any to take on the fed.

“The time is ripe in America for states to challenge federal power, from Obamacare to indefinite detention, to illegal spying on U.S. Citizens and media, to IRS abuses of power and more,” he told WND.

“It was the states which created this federal government that has grown to become such a monster. It’s time for the states to get their creature back on a leash. With MSSA v. Holder [the official name of his case], we will offer the Supreme Court a chance to do just that,” he said.

Here’s hoping that the Supreme Court has the chutzpah to take it on and that his years of hard work aren’t all for naught.

Post your Comments

It's sad that people who spend years in college studying law, and decades defending, prosecuting, and interpreting law, can't understand the simple English that is the US Constitution... Let alone the fact that the very idea behind the founding of this country is minimal federal government powers.

I'm not surprised about the ninth's decision; we will see if the SCOTUS--those black-robed high priests that too often protect government trampling of Constitutional rights--has the stones, not to mention brains, to stop this incursion into state and individual rights. If not, is there really any reason to think that America is exceptional in any way anymore? We're rapidly shedding whatever exceptionalism we have left but, hey, how 'bout them (fill in the sports team of your choice)!

Why are our government officials (who serve us), or other second amendment supporters, debating what infringements can be put on our second amendment right. They do not have that right! Our founding fathers declared, when establishing our Constitution, that We The People have the inherent, natural, unalienable, uninfringeable, right to bear arms. And in their writings declared it was for our protection against an oppressive, or tyrannical government. If We The People do not stand up and declare our liberties, we might as well lie down and cross our arms over our chest. For We The People and Our Country will surely die.
R.P.Reno

What did you expect from the 9th Circuit?
Sooner or later, this whole matter, along with a dozen other issues, plus all the Federal Agents which regulate life, must bring the Tenth Amendment on the table. It's make or break. In the meantime, every state should be nullifying as many Federal laws as they can. I don't expect our state, as we have a democrat governor who has already vetoed one nullification. We will see in the next session which will deal with override.

Remember that those who study law are coached in how to reinterpret words to suit their nefarious intents, that's why there are so many lawyers. If words had singular meanings, there would be no need for millions of lawyers......

In our NSA/CIA dominated federal tyranny, I have little hope of seeing the rights of states or people recognized or upheld by the "Gang of Nine". The Supreme Court refuses to uphold any of the Ten Commandments so prominently inscribed on the wall behind that high and mighty bench of the "Just-us" system that Eric Holder prostitutes so brazenly.

So what's the problem, Bill. I do believe the states are smart enough to figure out what needs to be kept and what needs to be thrown out. In the process, prepare to see people relocate to states recognizing personal liberty.

the federal level "pure" food and drug laws are a sham anyway. FDA permits the use of a large number of dangerous substances (HFCS, aspartame, MSG, GMO foods, may of the preservatives, most of the FD&C food dyes, then prohibits or severely regulate the sale/use of raw honey, almonds, milk and cheese products, many natural herbs and supplements... so, having the FDA"s assumed authority dumped would be nothing but a benefit. :et the private marketplace, together with privately funded research, bear on such trade.

SImilar things can be said about DOT, EPA, and FMVS requirements. Hey, if California can enact their own, more stringent, safety/pollution requirements, the fed vehicle standards are already compromised. Its a wonder someone hasn't brought an action against California for barriers to interstate commerce wiht their insane requirements on cars... even to the point they now restrict truck traffic to ones meeting their outrageous and expensive requirements. Besides that, who SAYS we all NEED thirteen air bags (at twenty five pounds and about twevle hundred dollars apiece) in our cars? Or onboard integrated GPS? Or the Black Box data event recorder, accessible to government snoops? Get Fed Gov back into their original cave. The sooner the better.

They understand it well. By their deliberate misinterpretation of the law & constitutional sabotage THEY HAVE TO [understand]. Unconstitutional law and injunctions are part of a long and not forgotten agenda. One that's idea is alive and well today. It's getting a little 'frosty' in here now ain't it. Wake up